Majority
p. 424Jackson, ex dem. Green, against Clark. ALBANY, August, 1808.
Headnote
P. gave to G. a writing, as follows: “This is to certify, that I have bargained 8c sold the one equal half of lot no. 30. in the great location of the Sable, for 14 shillings per acre, to liufus Green „• the interest tó commence from the 1st July, 1/92 It was held, that this was a mere agreement for a conveyance, & did not amount to a conveyance, or a lease.THIS was an action of ejectment. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Thompson, at the Clinton circuit, in June, 1808.
At the trial, the plaintiff produced in evidence, a writing as follows:
“ This is to certify, that I have bargained and sold, the one equal half of lot no. 20. in the great location of the Sable, for 14 shillings per acre, to Rufus Green, the interest to commence from the 1st July, 1/92.
“ Nathaniel PlattP
It was admitted, that previous to the year 1Z92, Platt was seised in fee of the premises in question ; that he was in possession, at the time he gave the above writing ; and that in the year-1801, he conveyed the premises to one Lovely, by deed, who took possession at the same time, and, afterwards, conveyed the land to the defendant. The defendant took possession under the last mentioned deed, and has held the premises to this time.
The defendant proved, that nothing had ever been paid by Green, for the land, either at the time of the bargain mentioned in the certificate, or at any subsequent period.
It was proved, on the part of the plaintiff, that Green was to have his own time to pay for the land, having rendered services to Platt, who, for that reason, gave him the indulgence, as to payment.
Platt was offered as a witness to prove that Green gave up the contract, but he was objected to by the plaintiff, and rejected by the judge.
A verdict was taken, by consent, subject to the opinion of the court, on a case.
Skinner, for the plaintiff.
Foot, contra.
I had no doubt, at the trial, that the paper produced by the plaintiff, was a mere memorandum
p. 425
of a conveyance, and should have Ordered a nonsuit, had not the plaintiff’s counsel urged that the cause might go to the jury, and the question be reserved, as to the operation of the writing given in evidence.
This is a mere agreement, that Green, on paying 14 shillings per acre, with interest,’ from the 1st fuly, 1792, should have a conveyance of the land. It is not a conveyance ; nor a lease-. No consideration is expressed, or paid; no rent reserved, nor are there any words importing a lease. It is a memorandum of an ex-ecutory agreement to sell the land, and nothing more» There must be, according to the case, a judgment of non-suit.
Judgment of nonsuit,